US v. Miguel Lopez-Ramirez
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MIGUEL LOPEZ-RAMIREZ, a/k/a Fernando Miranda, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00062-REP-1)
May 12, 2010
June 15, 2010
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Caroline Swift Platt, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen David Schiller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Miguel Lopez-Ramirez (Miguel) challenges the substantive
reasonableness of the fifty-nine month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to the charge of
illegally reentering the United States following the commission of a felony and removal, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1). affirm. We
I Miguel is a citizen of Mexico. United bodily States injury, in April 2000, was He unlawfully entered the convicted of assault and with
counts in Tennessee state court in June 2001, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with fifty percent of the sentence suspended. He was arrested by
federal immigration authorities in October 2001 and was removed to Mexico in December 2001. Sometime in March 2002, Miguel illegally reentered the
United States near El Paso, Texas.
On July 5, 2002, he was
convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon and evading arrest in Tennessee state court and sentenced to thirty days in jail. On July 8, 2002, Miguel was arrested by federal immigration On
authorities and the previous removal order was reinstated.
- 2 -
September 24, 2002, pursuant to the reinstated removal order, Miguel was removed to Mexico. On March 9, 2003, Miguel illegally reentered the United States near by Eagle Pass, Texas. On Border March 11, 2003, he was in
For this reentry, Miguel was convicted on
October 10, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas of illegally reentering the United States following removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), a felony, and was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment. On November 10, 2003, On November
Miguel's previous order of removal was reinstated.
13, 2003, pursuant to the reinstated removal order, Miguel was removed to Mexico. At some time in December 2003, Miguel illegally reentered the United States near Laredo, Texas. On January 2, 2004,
Miguel was arrested by federal immigration authorities in Eagle Pass, Texas. For this reentry, Miguel was convicted in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas of illegally reentering the United States following removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and was sentenced to twenty-one months' After
imprisonment, with three years of supervised release. 1
Based on the criminal conduct that followed this § 1326(a) conviction, Miguel is facing the revocation of his supervised release.
- 3 -
completing his sentence of imprisonment, on February 3, 2006, Miguel's previous order of removal was reinstated. 2006, pursuant to the reinstated removal order, On April 28, Miguel was
removed to Mexico. At some time in February 2008, Miguel illegally reentered the United States near Laredo, Texas. was arrested by federal immigration On July 9, 2008, Miguel authorities in Atlanta,
On July 17, 2008, Miguel's previous order of removal On August 2, 2008, pursuant to the reinstated
removal order, Miguel was removed to Mexico. In December 2008, Miguel illegally reentered the United
States at an unknown location.
On February 11, 2009, Miguel was
found in the Eastern District of Virginia by federal immigration authorities while he was in the custody of the Sheriff's Office of Chesterfield County, Virginia, awaiting trial for DUI. On February 17, 2009, a federal grand jury sitting in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia returned a one-count indictment charging Miguel with illegally reentering the United States following the commission of a felony and removal, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1). 7, 2009, Miguel pleaded guilty to this offense. In preparation for sentencing, a presentence report was On May
prepared by a United States probation officer.
officer concluded that Miguel's total offense level was ten and - 4 -
history range of
imprisonment. 2 At the sentencing hearing on July 24, 2009, neither party objected to the PSR. After considering the presentence report,
Miguel's conduct, the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, the district court
determined that a sentence within the advisory sentencing range would not serve the purposes of § 3553(a) and therefore elected to impose an upward variance sentence of fifty-nine months'
The upward variance sentence was premised on the
following findings: (1) Miguel had "shown a remarkable disregard for the law," under (J.A. the 78); law (2) he had had (3) and been not he given deterred committed any reasonable him from
treatment violating crimes
immigration the United
disparity resulting in this case was not unwarranted.
The probation officer arrived at the total offense level of ten as follows: base offense level of eight, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2L1.2(a), plus four levels for the commission of the instant offense after a prior felony conviction, USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D), and minus two levels for acceptance of responsibility, USSG § 3E1.1(a). Miguel's criminal history category of five was premised on his twelve criminal history points.
- 5 -
reasonableness of his sentence.
II We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuseof-discretion standard. (2007). error," Our initial Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, review is to for "significant (or procedural improperly
calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to
adequately explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range." We next "consider Id. the substantive Id. of the
At this stage, we "take into account
the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range." Id. "If the district
court decides to impose a sentence outside the Guidelines range, it must ensure that its justification supports the degree of the variance." Cir.), cert. United States 129 v. S. Evans, Ct. 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th and on
appeal that a sentence within a properly calculated advisory sentencing range is substantively reasonable. - 6 United States v.
Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding permissibility of presumption of reasonableness for a sentence within the advisory sentencing range). There is no challenge to the procedural reasonableness of the sentence, so we may proceed directly to the question of substantive Miguel's reasonableness. month In this case, on the one hand, much
higher than the high-end of the sentencing range.
On the other
hand, the district court correctly noted that Miguel has not been deterred by short sentences in the past. twice illegally reentered the United In 2008 alone, he and he has
illegally entered the United States six times.
Even after being
twice convicted of illegally reentering the United States and serving States time less for than those two offenses, years Miguel he after has a in returned being series a from a to the United from
imprisonment. immigration range, and
uncharged sentencing immigration court's
violations his is
criminal less than
sentencing discretion is not unbounded, a sentencing appeal is not an opportunity for the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the district court. the district court concluded that Miguel Here, understandably, had demonstrated a
- 7 -
respect the laws of this country, and needed to be deterred from committing future violations. Finally, although the fifty-nine
month sentence is substantial, it does not create an unwarranted disparity with similarly situated defendants and is well below the ten-year statutory maximum established by Congress. In
short, we find no abuse of discretion in the upward variance sentence imposed by the district court. AFFIRMED
- 8 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?